I bet the folks at OSU are not enjoying this BCS system. Another year and questions remain shouldn't there be a better system say a playoff.You never here other sports complain about who got shafted and left off the dinner list because they play it on the field.This year its OSU's turn to get the shaft. .

_________________Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.

Okie State should love the BCS. Because frankly the computers are the only system that puts them in the #2 spot. It's the human voters that prevented them from going to the Nat'l Championship.

Of course there should be a plus-1, but this argument is really tiresome in my eyes. The super conferences will eventually institute some sort of plus-1 or playoff system eventually.

But people constantly complain about the BCS and stuff every year, but it never precludes anyone from watching the national title game, and/or enjoying the win. When Alabama wins and becomes the national champ, no one is going to care for 11 months that the system is flawed. The world will keep spinning.

If Alabama wins and I were an LSU fan I'd probably be pissed because all it would mean is they beat us once and we beat them once. It's total BS this match up is happening but it is all about the money. And it isn't AU haterism on my part as I'd love for Alabama to beat them and Richardson win the Heisman so we could at least say the state reigns supreme at something other than bigotry and tornado deaths. OK State should be playing LSU. This also really makes me wonder how it was AU didn't play USC in 2004 with Oklahoma doing so instead. BCS is juts protecting the bowl $. As to the comment that no one will care in 11 months or it won't keep people from watching the game...duh. This can apply to everything from Bowl games to Presidential elections. But there should be some sense of fair play and logic. The way they have held off a playoff system in D-1 is laughably corrupt.

I guess my beef bnb is that with the amount of complaints that are level directly at the BCS, you would think they screwed Okie State, and they did not.

The BCS is just the refinement of a system that has been in place for pretty much 80-100 years in college football, which is people pick who they think is the national champion. People picked Alabama and LSU as the two best teams because both the AP and Harris poll put them there, and the BCS made the move however many years ago (4 or 5?) that those two systems would be 2/3 of the scoring system, and by and large they control who plays.

And you can certainly say that system is a flawed and antiquated way of doing it, and you'd be right. But any system would be flawed, just some a little less than others. Because you have 350 Division I universities spread across this country that make money off their sports programs. And 120 of those 350 schools make enough money specifically off their football programs that basically fund their entire athletic programs if not their entire universities.

And you're right, it's all corrupt. And the reason why the playoffs work in the FCS (or Division I-AA) is that there isn't enough money involved for that corruption to happen. Now we're talking about the difference between ten of thousands and tens of millions of dollars. Cha-ching!

But guess what regardless of the system, it would be flawed in some way, and there would be some form of complaining. If you had a plus-1, then Oregon would be complaining because Stanford got in and they beat them. If you had a 6-team playoff, then Boise State would be complaining as a 1-loss team and both Arkansas and Oregon a 2-loss team got in. And if it was a 16-team playoff, I'm sure Georgia, Oklahoma, and Houston would all be finding something to complain about if they were left out in the cold. Why? Because it would still come down to people picking whatever teams that they thought were deserving of whatever honors/opportunities...

Now, I'm past defending the BCS. It's fairly indefensible. But i think it's overly villified for the problems that plague college football.

And in 10 years when we are likely to have the Super conferences and a playoff system among the premier 60-80 programs in Division I, we'll look back and be able to realize that the BCS was what was able to bring that about. Will we say that bridge was too long and too bumpy than it needed to be? Probably.

But it is so tiresome to keep hearing the "Oh, woe is me! We got screwed by the BCS!" every friggin year, where the BCS isn't screwing anybody.

And the silver lining that gets forgotten every December/January is that the current system means that the regular season matters. And you have two teams that have converging paths on their way to the national title that meet in October, November, and December. And one team wins and keeps their national title hopes alive, and the other team loses and they dreams die. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.

And that fact is vastly underappreciated? Why? Because Oklahoma State doesn't get to play in a game that they were almost certainly going to lose? Why should I feel sympathy for Okie State, when they just had to beat Iowa State, or Boise State that just has to beat TCU or Nevada, or USC when they lost to Oregon State, etc.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for these teams because they don't get to play for the national title because they lost to an inferior opponent earlier int he year?

Alabama outplayed LSU in that first game, and they lost because they shot themselves in the foot too many times. It really is no different than their game against Auburn last year. And now they get a 2nd shot at it? Because they deserve it? No. Because teams like Okie State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Stanford, Boise State, Arkansas, etc. all blew their opportunities. What is so unfair about that? What is the great tragedy that I'm missing?

If the goal is to have the two best teams play for the national title, then nothing is wrong.

OK state was undefeated, right? Bama has one loss and it was to LSU. That should be the end of the story. Whether Bama outplayed LSU is debatable but what is undebatable is that LSU scored more points than Bama. College football is pro football with a far less level playing field. IMO, LSU already got a pretty cheap national championship a few years back but if they lose to Bama in this game a part of me says they are getting screwed.

No, OK State got upset by Iowa State a few weeks back on the road. Like Alabama, they are a 1-loss team. The only difference is that OK State won its conference and Alabama did not.

Why is LSU getting screwed? That makes no sense. If they lose to Alabama, then Alabama is deservedly the national champ. They should be rewarded for their beating Alabama earlier this year by playing the 4th best team in the country (OK State) for the national title?...

D'oh! I had forgotten until this AM that OK St had a loss. Screw those dust bowl wallowing wannabees. Nevermind!

The reason I feel like LSU gets screwed if they lose to Bama is that they have beat them once--at Bama. Almost feels like there should be a tie breaker game. These things will never be "fair" until there are playoffs and there may be gripes then. I think they are the best two teams in the country. I imagine the rest of the football world gets a little tired of the SEC beating its chest but when you have a 800 pound gorilla jumping up and down on the couch swinging a chain you pretty much have to give him respect.

But think about this bnb, if there was a playoff, this scenario could come again. A re-match for the title game, with one team having already beat another. Would LSU seem less screwed if Bama beat them in the title game, just because LSU beat Stanford and Bama beat Okie State a week before?

I guess one of my points is that for all the complaining about the BCS that we're hearing, it's just the same tired old BCS. Yes, the BCS is flawed. But is it bad? No, I don't think so. Do we really feel that LSU-Bama in the title game is any more unfair than Auburn-Oregon last year, or Bama-Texas the year before? We really haven't had any "true" controversy since '08 when a 1-loss Oklahoma played Florida over a 1-loss Texas team that beat that OU team. Do we really feel bad about undefeated TCU, Utah, Boise State, or Cincinnati not getting a crack at the title over the past 3 years? People just try their best to drum up controversy every year because "I want a playoff!" Why? Because...

... A) They really don't care about college football, and thus need a "hook" to start to pay attention. This is predominately the sports writers crowd that predominantly live in major cities across the nation that have a small college football footprint

... B) They are fans of one of these really good teams that finish in the Top 5 or so teams, but their respective team lost a game they shouldn't have in September, October, or November, and they want a shot to atone. They feel it's not fair to judge them harsher because they lost to Iowa State or TCU rather than LSU.

I used to be anti-playoff because it's just the rich getting richer and opens up college football for potentially more corruption. But now I realize it's inevitable, and it makes too much financial sense for the Top 30 or so "power programs" that generate more revenue from football than practically everything else combined, to deny its benefits.

But the truth of the matter is that it's not really going to change as much as people think. People will get more excited during the playoffs because channels like ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc. will hype them to no end. Some schools will make a lot more money, others a lot less. But it's not going to change our perceptions of college football. We're not going to feel any better about LSU winning the title just because they beat Stanford a week before. We're not going to be anymore inclined to remember who won the previous titles 3-5 years later. All that will change is that you'll get more matchups like this year's where the top two SEC schools will wind up in the championship game.

You read the above and you immediately realize what a cliff cfb is teetering on w/ the current system. Between coach pole, computer not disclosing their formulas and harris pollsters who don't watch football...GREAT read!

While I really don't think this was "fair" in the greater scheme of things I think last night showed who the best team in college football was. Wow. What a defensive performance. If Saban had a kicker worth a flip he would have won the first game, of course. But, quite often, championships are not won by the best team. They are won by the team who got hot or who the breaks fell just right for. Tired argument, I know, and it is what it is...which is all about money and TV marquee curb appeal. By the way, will someone please ask Brent Musburger to go away forever? "It's second down and Alabama passes the ball!"

Well I enjoyed it. Especially since I was rooting for Bama. When Saban first went there, I was kinda against it because of all the stuff that happened at Miami. But in watching that team play since Florida won the title that one year, I started to really just like the way that team plays and have been quietly rooting for them the past 3 years to win the SEC every year. He's really solidified that program. If not the best team, they have been the 2nd best team in that conference for each of the past 4 years. I think they were a better team than Auburn last year, just that Cam Newton was Cam Newton, and if not for Ingram's fumble, they would have won the national title 3 straight years.

College football may be a cesspool of indecency and corruption, but it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of GREAT football is played across the country. And as I said to widetrak21 in another thread, you really just have to turn off your brain and just enjoy the games and leave all the politics and peripheral stuff at the door.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum